TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... original adjudicating authority partly allowed the claims but rejected the refund claim to the tune of Rs. 46,20,253/- in respect of certain services. 3. The rejected refund claims fall into three categories as under: - i. Services which were not used by the Appellant for authorised operations, viz. "Rent-a-cab Operator Services", "Outdoor Caterer's Services", "Customs House Agent Services used for clearance of goods to Domestic Tariff Area" and "Services used for DTA clearance", the total rejected refund claim in respect of which amounts to Rs. 44,45,035/- ii. Services consumed within the Special Economic Zone, "Security Agency Services", the rejected refund claim in respect of which amounts to Rs. 1,70,998/-. iii. Services for which invoices were not raised on the Appellant's unit located at SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur but raised on Gurgaon unit of the Appellant, the rejected refund claim in respect of which amounts to Rs.4,220/-. 4. The reasons stated by the original authority for rejection of refund claims of the first category, viz. "Rent-a-cab Operator Services", "Outdoor Caterer's Services", "Customs House Agent Services used for clearance of good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of GST & Central Excise, Chennai, Final Order Nos. 40672-40677/2025 dated 26.06.2025 (CESTAT Chennai), where it was held as under: "In view of the above discussion and appreciating the facts and applying the ratio of the above decisions relied upon, we are of the view that once the services are approved by the Approval Committee and are utilized in relation to the authorized operations in SEZ, rejecting a part of the claims is not in order as above. However, the Refund Sanctioning Authority has to satisfy himself that these input services are approved by the Approval Committee, due service tax has been paid, no CENVAT credit on these services availed and are used authorized operations." [Emphasis Supplied by the Appellant] 8.2 The Ld. Advocate submitted that it is the settled law that once the Approval Committee has approved services such as Rent-a-Cab and Outdoor Catering as authorised operations and the assessee has paid service tax on the services utilized in connection with the authorized operations, refund of service tax cannot be denied. In this regard, he relied upon the decisions in the following cases: - i. Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DTA clearance" are not services required in relation to the manufacture of goods in the SEZ unit and therefore, these services were not used by the Appellant for authorised operations in the SEZ. 9.3 The Ld. AR referred to the findings in para 13(ii) of the Order-in-Original No.55/2011 (R) dated 28.07.2011 and reiterated that in terms of Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009, as amended vide notification No. 15/2009ST dated 20.05.2009, services consumed within the SEZ are unconditionally exempted from service tax and therefore, the exemption by way of refund would be limited to situations only when taxable services provided to SEZ are consumed partly or wholly outside SEZ. He averred that the services of security agency services are consumed within the SEZ and therefore, the refund claimed on the service tax paid with respect to security agency services is liable for rejection. 10. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records and also the case laws relied upon. 11. The issues for consideration in this appeal are: - i. Whether the rejection of refund claims amounting to Rs.44,45,035/- in respect of "Rent-a-cab Operator Services", "Outdoor Caterer's Service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of refund of the service tax liability discharged even when all such services have been consumed fully within the SEZ. It is further seen that list of specified services have been issued by Development Commissioner for authorized operations by the unit within MEPZ/SEZ in which disputed services viz. Rent-a-cab services, and Outdoor catering services are listed out at Sl.No.20 & 25 respectively. Thus, I find that the conditionalities in para (i) of Notification No.9/2009-ST, as amended, are satisfied. At the same time, type and genre of services provide under these heads should also not foul the definition of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, however, that is not the issue in dispute here. I find that case laws relied upon by learned advocate are on all fours with the issue at hand. Tribunal's decision in Intas Pharma Ltd. Vs CST cited supra has been followed in a number of other subsequent Tribunal s decisions. The relevant paragraphs of the Intas Pharma Ltd. decision are worthy of reproduction as under : "8. In view of the legislated exemption supra and since provisions of the 2005 Act are provided an overriding effect vide Section 51; and absent any prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....monious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act cannot be so interpreted as to be eclipsed the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These Notifications are calibrated to enable recipients of taxable services (exempt from liability to tax under the provisions of the 2005 Act), to claim refund of the Service Tax, wherever assessed and collected by Revenue or remitted otherwise by the taxable service provider, inadvertently. Considered in the light of this analysis, the substituted provisions, of clause/sub-paragraph c of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services." 5. The decision of CESTAT Chennai in the case of Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No.4183041832/2016 dt. 7.10.2016], which is in appellant's favour is also reproduced below for ready reference : "Appellant is a manufacturing unit located in SEZ. The Approval Committee has permitted the appellant to avail the serv....